Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Yohan Roux

Ron Paul For President

Recommended Posts

Intelligence is a serious handicap in politics, which is why intelligent people do productive things with their lives instead of drowning in the slime and filth of politics. Occasionally, though, for weird, psychological reasons, an intelligent person ventures into the cesspool with the goal of reducing the stench. Such people rarely win, but their sacrifice sometimes acts to remind voters that they are ultimately responsible for the goofballs who govern them.

As for the Republican Party, it has lost the election. Neither 'Hairdo' nor 'Bruiser' nor 'Sanatorium' can win against Obama. (I am not a Democrat, nor am I an Obama supporter). I admire Paul for his intelligence and honesty. He knows little about economics, but I prefer a chipped plate to a perfect fool. Needless to say, none of this matters. The real question is what will happen 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Deltango Vale wrote:.

...........He knows little about economics, .........


Neither does the head of the editorial board for the Wall street Journal...............

Looking back to JFK's Commencement Speech at Yale and his discussion of economics there, nothing has changed in over 50 years.  Ron is the only one offering an alternative to all the failed solutions since Kennedy.  Just maybe he may be on the right track.

I am not an economist but I do know that all that has been tried so far has failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I debated with myself on whether or not to weigh in on this topic.  But, after reading all the posts so far, I sort of find it amusing that many of the posters weighing in are either not US citizens and cannot vote or (on one occassion) a US citizen but has stated that he will not vote this election cycle.  The thread was even started by someone who admits to not being a US citizen (and, therefore, cannot vote).  I'm sure everyone who has posted (whether a US citizen or not) has some knowledge of the US Constitution.........at least I hope so.  Ron Paul is a Libertarian.... which means he's a "Constitutionist".  He's running as a Republican in the primaries for the nomination of the Rebublican Party to run against Barrack Obama.  It's a very good thing to have someone who's very Constitutionally oriented in the primaries for the Rebublican Party.........the country has gotten  so far away for the basic document that founded this country that it's sickening (not to mention that the devergence from the document that started it all here in the US, put the entire country in jeopardy of falling into some form of government very different from what is was envisioned to be by the founders of the Constitution).  We need the likes of Ron Paull. 

I'm a registered Republican in a very liberal state (I'm part of a huge minority).  I'm up in the air about voting for Ron Paul come June when the primaries are held in my state.......if he's still running I'll give it some very serious thought.  But the problem I have is that, though I'm a Republican, I'm also somewhat of a Constitutionist........it's a document that is not all that complicated and if government goes agains the Constitution I get rather radical.  Whoever the Republican nominee is come the Convention is who I'm going to vote for in Novemeber.  It could be Romney (who is not any better than McCain was 4 years ago), Newt Gingrich (who I actually admire for his pit bull personality......he's a fighter to say the least).   Rick Santorum who actually is the closest to my core beliefs overall.  Or Ron Paul...........with a caveat.  I will vote for Ron Paul only if he's the nonimee......I won't vote for him if he runs as a third party (Libertarian).  I'll vote for anyone other than Barrack Obama........who, in my opinion, is the closest this country has come to having a dictator (monarch, king, whatever).

Just last week Obama signed a Presidential Executive Order mandating religious organization provide a service that is Constitutionally illegal.  He told churches that they must do something that is very much against the teachings of the churches (not just the Catholic Church....what about the Christian Scientists of which I am a member?).  That is unconstitutional yet he mandated it.  He's since back tracked a little but it's the mere fact that he tried to mandate something clearly against the Constitution of the US (and he taught Constitutional Law?).  His Healt Care Law did the same thing but that's going to be decided by the Supreme Court this summer........we'll see how that stands.  Obama must be defeated next November   I don't care how well he's liked personally by anyone (Europeans, Africans, Asians, or US citizens, he's dangerous to my country). 

If Ron Paul is the nominee I'll be somewhat scared about him winning.  Not that he's not a capable candidate but that he's a little too far out there on foriegn policy.  I actually agree with most of his stance in that area but I'm also realistic about the world.  You can't appease people who want you dead........you need to pick up the gun and defend yourself.  Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would be catastrophic for this country and the world.  The Cold War may be over but we are still at war for our survival.  Now, if Europe or others pick up the slack and defend themselves then Ron Paul's Presidency would be the saviar.......but I don't think they will (sorry all you Europeans, but you haven't shown much on that front in the last 50 yearrs).  But, if Ron Paul did win I would breathe easier.

I just hope he doesn't change his mind about runing as a third party candidate......that would split the vote like Bob Barr did last election.  That contributed to Obama's overwhelming win in 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. Won't vote for him.

I live in the USA. I agree with some of the things Ron Paul says but I would not vote for him for President, absolutely not. He has some interesting ideas and has said some interesting things i.e. reducing the size of the federal governement - but his zeal to abolish the federal government to the extent he wants to abolish it scares the living  cr&p out of me. His ideas put a lot of responsibility on each state individually. In reducing federal government, he will just increase state governments. It's not truly getting rid of anything, its just moving the responsibility around. It's not a bad idea just one I don't agree with the way he wants to go about it. I think it would fracture this country even more than it is already.

The things I don't like that he wants to do:
-Eliminate immediately 5 cabinet-level agencies - Education (this of all things we really need to keep, and fund MORE, not less), Interior, Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development. Eliminate. Not cut their budgets, eliminate completely.

Cut funding (down from 2006 levels) for the:
Food and Drug Administration by 40%,
Centers for Disease Control by 20%,
Department of Homeland Security by 20%,
National Institutes of Health by 20%,
Environmental Protection Agency by 30%,
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services by 20%

AND: cut the top corporate tax rate to 15% (down from 35%) :matte-motes-agape:

He does not believe in the separation of church and state.  Ron Paul voted against legislation to help catch online child predators. He says that parents should have the responsibility to protect their own children from such actions. He said, and I quote "those who experience sexual harassment in the work force should just quit."

He does not believe in the individuals right to privacy - says it's not in the constitution therefore not a right. He's too hard core against abortion for my taste. He doesn't believe that  citizens have the right to access to education. Pell grants and federal college education loans would go buh-bye.

His "Restore America" budget plan proposes selling off at least $40 billion worth of public lands such as national parks, and other federal assets, between 2013 and 2016. He doesn't believe climate change is an issue (it's February, and my air conditioning is on, yet it's snowing in north Africa, but okay, whatever). He does not believe access to health care is a human right and he's another one who would like to abolish Medicare.

I could go on but these things in my opinion are enough that I could not vote for him.

And by the way, the most embarassing Newt Gingrich is not the front runner for the Repubican nomination, Romney is at the moment. I don't think Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance of getting the nod from the GOP, even though most of his ideas are better than the other guys (most of whom don't have ideas but do have lots of rhetoric) but as other posters have pointed out, he just doesn't have the money to pull it off.

 

 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Qie Niangao wrote:

Full disclosure: Although I live in Canada these days, I'm a US citizen and hence could vote in the presidential election. (Theoretically.  Ain't gonna happen, but I
could
.)

From here, it's harder to see why so many folks are so disappointed in Obama.

 

Hi Que - Why do I have so much trouble responding in this forum, the formatting is horrible.  I really want to address this for you living way up north there!  I'm an Obama supporterand I think he won the most difficult presidency in American history. The multitude of things that needed immediate attention when he became president would have crippled a lesser person, I'm completely convinced. This country was in an economic state it's never been in before and there was eight years of bad decisions and their nasty fallout to clean up. Really bad decisions and toxic fallout. No way ANYONE could fix this mess in just a couple of years, I don't care who was elected.

I heard an interesting discussion that said the main reason the GOP offered McCain/Palen on the last presidential ticket was that they knew they couldn't win, and  that no matter who was elected they were going to have to make some very unpopular decisions and pretty much piss off every corner of the country, so they wanted the black man to win, and then fail miserably. It's really hard to accept how many people in this country are still such racists, I really thought we were evolving.

Change takes time, especially to fix: two unfunded wars that practically bankrupted this country; meltdown of banking and housing industry; overwhelming unemployment.  Anyone who thinks they could have fixed any of these things quickly needs to think again. Obama is a smart guy who has had to fight congress every step of the way for every single thing, it's ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...

I heard an interesting discussion that said the main reason the GOP offered McCain/Palen on the last presidential ticket was that they knew they couldn't win, and  that no matter who was elected they were going to have to make some very unpopular decisions and pretty much piss off every corner of the country, so they wanted the black man to win, and then fail miserably. It's really hard to accept how many people in this country are still such racists, I really thought we were evolving.

..."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Think you just called me a racist. 

I did not vote for Obama in 2008.  It had nothing to do with his color or his race.  It had everything to do with his political outlook on what this country should be.  He's shown that my "judgement" was correct.  He could have been whiter than white (John Kerry) and my vote would have been the same..........Hilary Clinton same thing.

That broad brush of racism is a weapon used so often by people who simply don't understand that most people vote because of what they believe..........not because of who the "other" is.

But you are probably right about McCain and Palin.  I had to hold my nose to punch the ink marker in the hole.  McCain is a three time loser on the Presidential front........and I thought the Republican Party would have known that.  But I guess they didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not calling you a racist, Peggy. But there is a drift of very hateful racial subtext going on all over this country concerning our President and it's such a waste of energy. If you don't see or hear it, then perhaps good for you. But I see it, I hear it and I hate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can always see what you are looking for when you're dealing with people and politics.  And it's obvious when you see you see comments like yours.  No one has ever mentioned Obama's race except the people who see, like you, racism everywhere.  I'm not a racist and I highly object to comments that imply I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever you need to tell yourself, sweetie. Don't take it so personally, unless you are one of those who are hoping our President fails miserably - I wasn't calling you a racist. I hereby state that I never called you a racist.There are, however, people out there who dislike him purely because of his race, I've heard it said out loud right in front of me more than once. It's hard to believe, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually do hope this President fails miserably next November.  He's already accomplished his failure as President.

However, Sweetie, you (Shelby Silverspar) brought up that four letter word.  Not me or anyone else.  You are a self proclaimed supporter of Obama and I am not...but your broad brush just painted me (and anyone who thinks as I do) as a racist.  You did not say "Peggy, you are a racist" but you did say that people who think like I do are racists.........so take your excuses elsewhere.  You pulled the card out of the deck.  Not anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Shelby Silverspar wrote:

Nope. Won't vote for him.

I live in the USA. I agree with some of the things Ron Paul says but I would not vote for him for President, absolutely not. He has some interesting ideas and has said some interesting things i.e. reducing the size of the federal governement - but his zeal to abolish the federal government to the extent he wants to abolish it scares the living  cr&p out of me. His ideas put a lot of responsibility on each state individually. In reducing federal government, he will just increase state governments. It's not truly getting rid of anything, its just moving the responsibility around. It's not a bad idea just one I don't agree with the way he wants to go about it. I think it would fracture this country even more than it is already.


By putting more of the responsibilities on the states, you get better, direct, customized service.

 

Shelby Silverspar wrote:

The things I don't like that he wants to do:

-
Eliminate
immediately 5 cabinet-level agencies - Education (this of all things we really need to keep, and fund MORE, not less), Interior, Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development. Eliminate. Not cut their budgets, eliminate completely.

Cut funding (down from 2006 levels) for the:

Food and Drug Administration by 40%,

Centers for Disease Control by 20%,

Department of Homeland Security by 20%,

National Institutes of Health by 20%,

Environmental Protection Agency by 30%,

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services by 20%

AND: cut the top corporate tax rate to 15% (down from 35%) :matte-motes-agape:

OMG! Look at all that waste! Personally, I think he should cut more. All of those agencies are as corrupt as the rest of the government. They protect us from nothing, and actually could easily be criminally charged for the frauds they perpetuate and the harm they cause families.

Corporations don't pay the tax. You do! The whole idea of a corporate tax is an illusion. The corporation is there to make money. If you tax them, they pass that cost onto you. This should be the most obvious thing to understand, but not when we have the same corporate media telling us what to believe.

 

Shelby Silverspar wrote:

He does not believe in the separation of church and state.  Ron Paul voted against legislation to help catch online child predators. He says that parents should have the responsibility to protect their own children from such actions. He said, and I quote "those who experience sexual harassment in the work force should just quit."

He does not believe in the individuals right to privacy - says it's not in the constitution therefore not a right. He's too hard core against abortion for my taste. He doesn't believe that  citizens have the
right
to access to education. Pell grants and federal college education loans would go buh-bye.

His "Restore America" budget plan proposes selling off at least $40 billion worth of public lands such as national parks, and other federal assets, between 2013 and 2016. He doesn't believe climate change is an issue (it's February, and my air conditioning is on, yet it's snowing in north Africa, but okay, whatever). He does not believe access to health care is a human right and he's another one who would like to abolish Medicare.

I could go on but these things in my opinion are enough that I could not vote for him.


These are all gross misrepresentations of Ron Paul's views. He believe's in the constitution, which means you can't steal money from me because you are paranoid of child malestation, or don't watch your kid close enough. That is for you to deal with in your own community.

 

Ron Paul is the only candidate that believe in personal privacy. I have no idea how you twisted that. He is not at all overwhatever on abortion. That is another state issue, which pretty much means he is the most sympathetic on abortion rights. Education is not a right at all. Neither is healthcare. Both of those services require labour. You can't say, in a free society, that some1 else's labour is your right. You can't steal from me to pay for your healthcare, which you feel entitled to. The only reason healthcare and education cost so much is because of all the freebies. Without any freebies, schools wouldn't have half the customers, and they would have to cut prices. Same goes for healthcare. Plus, at a local level, even city or county level, these services would be much more affective than any federal crap.

 

Climate change, really..... that is, has been, and always was a
fraud
. The whole theory makes no logical sense, and uses emotional responses to trigger a, save the world, type of fury. At 1 point, in history, the viking settled on Greenland, and they even grew many different crops. Hence the name Greenland. Now it is almost all covered in ice. So, man, those dang viking bust of had bad gas all the time to make Greenland green. Basically, Gore's models predict global ruin, yet can't figure out why vikings could live in Greenland. The whole load of BS is all about money and carbon taxes. Is there strange weather events, maybe, but it sure ain't carbon's fault or humans, for the most part. If you are a Ron Paul supporter, than you are the ultimate environmentalist. If you believe in property rights, the law, and contracts, that is all you need to protect land. No1 wants to be harmed by pollution. As it is, the EPA gives passes and regulates the poison. Why do you need the poision at all? The very corporations that the EPA gives all the breaks to, are the 1's that should all be closed and ceos in jail. You give them some1 to bribe, and the rich will bribe them.

You really should watch more Ron Paul videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Shelby Silverspar wrote:

Nope. Won't vote for him.

The things I don't like that he wants to do:

-
Eliminate
immediately 5 cabinet-level agencies -
Education (this of all things we really need to keep, and fund MORE, not less), I
nterior, Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development. Eliminate. Not cut their budgets, eliminate completel


 

We do not need more funding for the Dept of Education. 

The Dept of Education did not exist, as it currently does, until 1979/1980.  Carter upgraded the Dept of Ed, under political pressure from unions.  It was a political plum given to the National Education Association and other teachers unions (who gave him money and votes).   It was a political creation based upon power.

But, during the time since then, the US has lost critical ground in education on all fronts.   Our students are being out performed by other nations, our populace cannot compete on the world market for critical jobs.   Schools all across the nation are failing, and the disastrous "No Child Left Behind" program has crippled the schools. 

The current budget for the Dept of Education is a colossal $69.9 billion.  It has become another red-tape non-productive bureaucratic mess, siphoning off billions with dismal results.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/us-falls-in-world-education-rankings_n_793185.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-12-07-us-students-international-ranking_N.htm

 

Look how far down the list the US is for critical education scores, yet our federal budget is huge! 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

 

"Our top students are just not world class anymore," Schneider told CBS News.   

And he's right. Of 30 comparable countries, the United States ranks near the bottom. Take math - Finland is first, followed by South Korea, and the United States is number 25. Same story in science: Finland, number one again. The United States? Number 21.

Where does the United States outrank Finland? On the amount spent per student: just over $129,000 from K through 12. The other countries average $95,000.

"We have world class expenditures, but not world class results," said Schneider.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/14/eveningnews/main6866663.shtml

 

Returning autonomy to the states saves money, cuts out bureaucracy and delivers the type of education that is pertinent to the individual populations in the various states.  There is no "one size fits all" type of federal legislation that can adequately deal with the diverse educational needs that the 50 different states have.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-11.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the difference between Iran having the nucleur bomb and North Korea? I think Iran being an agrressor state is more US propaganda.....into prepping for yet another war on a soverign state! Iran has not attacked any neighbouring country since the 1800's (Iraq started their 8yr war)

Is the world a safer place with Israel, Pakistan and India possessing Nucleur weapons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no difference in Iran having a nuclear weapon and North Korea having a nuclear weapon...........zero, zilch.  North Korea has nuclear weapons already and it's a huge threat to the world.  So because of that and North Korea having the weapon we should just throw up our arms on Iran?  How about Vensuela and Hugo Chavez.......lets shrug our shoulders on that too.  How about Syria?  I could go on but you get the message.  When you countries run by tyrants who have no regard for human life you just can't sit idly by while they threaten to destroy anyone they disagree with.  Isreal, Pakistan, India, France, the UK, Russia and China at least have some regard for their citizens and have some working relationship with the world at large....they are not likely to indescriminately toss some nuclear bomb at one of their adversaries.  Iran has openly vowed to wipe Isreal off the map and there's every reason to believe that they will as soon as they believe they can do it.  In Iran's and North Korea's case you are not dealing with rational people.  North Korea is a problem but there's nothing we can do about it now except deal with it.........Iran would be another problem but there is something we can do about it.  We should have learned from our experiences in North Korea (but we wanted to talk about it and that's how well that worked out). 

I'm afraid Ron Paul would want to talk about it.........that worries me.  But over our present President, I'll take my chances with Dr. Paul any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Peggy Paperdoll wrote:

I actually do hope this President fails miserably next November.  He's already accomplished his failure as President.

 

You are very good at twisting my words, I'll give you that. My point was if people are actively hoping our President fails as our President (not the election) because of his race, it's abhorrant. Don't you agree with at least that? Not believing that people think that way is your right as well, but unfortunately they do.

Your opinion that he has failed as a President is your right to have. I have personally heard racial remarks slung at our President and it's embarassing. If you don't believe me, that's your right. I never called you a racist, and I think it's a little silly to take it so personally. It was NOT directed at YOU.

Everyone has their opinion on politics and we never all agree but that's part of the excitement of it and if you can look at it as a learning experience we can all win. I've learned some things here today, it's all good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Shelby Silverspar wrote:

Whatever you need to tell yourself, sweetie. Don't take it so personally, unless you are one of those who are hoping our President fails miserably - I wasn't calling
you
a racist. I hereby state that I never called you a racist.There are, however, people out there who dislike him purely because of his race, I've heard it said out loud right in front of me more than once. It's hard to believe, isn't it?

Are you really saying that anyone who doesn't want four more years of Obama is a racist?  I've never heard anyone mention his race (color?) as a reason for wanting him out.  I have heard many of his supporters fling accusations of racism.  It would have been interesting if Herman Cain had been able to sustain his run.  How would you have played the race card then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you're still stuck on this race business.  I don't have to hope the man fails as President.........he's done it already. 

Back to the race crap you're so sure is the reason I said what I said...........I do hope he fails next November.  It has nothing to do with his race.  It has everything to do with his policies and the direction he wants to take this country.  As I said already he's already failed as the President (in my opinion).  White, black, brown, pink, purple or yellow.........it makes no difference at all.

Pulling the race trick is an easy way to side step Obama's failures.  "Everyone's a racist who disagrees.  So it the bigots who made him fail".  He's done that pretty all by himself without us "bigots".  Why are you so intent on making it a racist thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Sammantha Koppel wrote:


Shelby Silverspar wrote:

Whatever you need to tell yourself, sweetie. Don't take it so personally, unless you are one of those who are hoping our President fails miserably - I wasn't calling
you
a racist. I hereby state that I never called you a racist.There are, however, people out there who dislike him purely because of his race, I've heard it said out loud right in front of me more than once. It's hard to believe, isn't it?

Are you really saying that anyone who doesn't want four more years of Obama is a racist?

The cited quote says nothing remotely like that.


I've never heard anyone mention his race (color?) as a reason for wanting him out.

So? Nobody opposes Obama because of his race? ("Are you really saying that...?")


I have heard many of his supporters fling accusations of racism.

I've never heard that, so it must not have happened.  (See how this works?)


It would have been interesting if Herman Cain had been able to sustain his run.  How would you have played the race card then?

So that's the thing about arguing the counterfactual:  it didn't happen -- maybe for a reason.  Herman Cain was quite buffoon enough to fail on the merits, but for all we can know, racism might have ended his campaign, had it not already imploded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really all i heard her say was that she heard a disscussion the other day where someone was saying the GOP was making excuses as to why they lost..and how they had this plan to lose..and that race was part of their excuse for losing..

if hillary would have won the primary  and then the election..they would have made the excuse about woman and how they had this elaberate plan to lose..

we lost on purpose and only because of this or that reason and the timing and bla bla bla..

it sounds more like just arm char quarterback type of talk from a chat room more than anything..

if you go into any political chat room ..you will always hear those people that have these crazy conspiracy theory excuses of why their side lost...

i think all shelby was saying is that it's amazing that there are people that still think this way..i don't think anyone in their right mind thinks the GOP wanted to lose..

i also don't think she was saying all GOP are racists..i think she just heard a discussion where one or more of them that are had showed up to spill out this crazy bullcrap of a plan that really never existed lol

in politics it's about looking good at all times even when caught lol

why would anyone think there are not some loons out there tossing out crazy ideas to win some political chatroom battle of why their side lost?

there are some hard core loons on both sides..those rooms can be very entertaining..but at the same time help to lose faith in fellow man/womankind..

it's fact that SOME people  refuse to evolve past certain things..i didn't see her grabbing everyone from that side and calling them racists..just those  people in that discussion that were tossing out that idea..

what i remember about 2008 was this..people were saying it was the worst selection for president in the history of selections for president..

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the people of the USA lost control in the 1950's, some presidents have tried, but the church, corps and banks are to powerful, I think they have done as they did years before in Europe taken over, the history of this goes back over 6000 years and is down to one family, the 18th dynasty Egypt, their rules and financial system is what is in place to day, the church was their creation to, but we wont go there, but the lords prayer is on the 18th dynasty walls and it is signed by its author, pharaoh, the system they introduced is the system we use today, it puts gold at the center, go further back in history and you can find a culture the same in 4000bc, they have even more writings and tell more of the story as to why we use gold, but we have had the same group with the same system coming into power and out again for the last 10000 years, the use of usury or compound interest has always been its down fall, that is when the ruling families have extracted all the wealth & gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Yohan Roux wrote:

I think the people of the USA lost control in the 1950's, some presidents have tried, but the church, corps and banks are to powerful, I think they have done as they did years before in Europe taken over, the history of this goes back over 6000 years and is down to one family, the 18th dynasty Egypt, their rules and financial system is what is in place to day, the church was their creation to, but we wont go there, but the lords prayer is on the 18th dynasty walls and it is signed by its author, pharaoh, the system they introduced is the system we use today, it puts gold at the center, go further back in history and you can find a culture the same in 4000bc, they have even more writings and tell more of the story as to why we use gold, but we have had the same group with the same system coming into power and out again for the last 10000 years, the use of usury or compound interest has always been its down fall, that is when the ruling families have extracted all the wealth & gold.

ya i'm aware of Osiris i believe it was..and the virgin birth and things like that..it's been awhile since i have done any reading on it and maybe i have the wrong god..but i remember the stories sounding very familiar to Mary and the birth of Christ and lots of other things..

most religions have some sort of take off of a miracle birth or special child.

 

my take on it is the American people woke up after the 50's and  the government still plays the same old games..even though we can see them ..they just don't care that we can see them..

they are playing the shaggy song game..say it wasn't me.. lol

the sad thing is we let it go on as a country rather than getting our minute man/woman on and show some back bone..

until then they will still keep shoving lies right in our watching what they are doing faces..

it's the same old song

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Peggy Paperdoll wrote:

There is no difference in Iran having a nuclear weapon and North Korea having a nuclear weapon...........zero, zilch.  North Korea has nuclear weapons already and it's a huge threat to the world.  So because of that and North Korea having the weapon we should just throw up our arms on Iran?  How about Vensuela and Hugo Chavez.......lets shrug our shoulders on that too.  How about Syria?  I could go on but you get the message.  When you countries run by tyrants who have no regard for human life you just can't sit idly by while they threaten to destroy anyone they disagree with.  Isreal, Pakistan, India, France, the UK, Russia and China at least have some regard for their citizens and have some working relationship with the world at large....they are not likely to indescriminately toss some nuclear bomb at one of their adversaries.  Iran has openly vowed to wipe Isreal off the map and there's every reason to believe that they will as soon as they believe they can do it.  In Iran's and North Korea's case you are not dealing with rational people.  North Korea is a problem but there's nothing we can do about it now except deal with it.........Iran would be another problem but there is something we can do about it.  We should have learned from our experiences in North Korea (but we wanted to talk about it and that's how well that worked out). 

I'm afraid Ron Paul would want to talk about it.........that worries me.  But over our present President, I'll take my chances with Dr. Paul any day.

US focuses on Iran, because it has the 3rd largest Oil reserve whereas North Korea has zero economic value...despite remaining a threat to both South Korea and Japan. North Korea is run by despots, not necessarily the case with Iran (hardline religious fundamentalists).

I've seen documentaries whereby Iran held out an olive branch to the U.S during the late 90's when Khatami took over the reigns....yet it's U.S Govt rejected their offer, it's no wonder Iran remains hostile towards the U.S (but not necessarily towards Europe). I don't see them as an aggressor State as was the case with Iraq (invasion of Kuwait)

You should worry more about the security of the old Soviet Union's stockpile of Nuclear weapons....and getting into the wrong hands!

--||-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll worry about what I think I need to worry about.  I'm a news hound (no, I don't rely on a single source for my news).  We made a mistake by ignoring North Korea (that was during the Clinton era and carried on by the Bush era).  Now they have nukes and there's not much we can do about it except live with that threat.  You are correct about North Korea having no resources that are globally important.  However, neither does South Korea.  S. Korea went tech like Japan (also with little resources).....N. Korea could have done the same but they were (and continue to be) under the thumb of China.  And we were (and continue to be) more interested in China as a global trading partner (to lessen China's threat to the world with their nukes and that has sort of worked out).  North Korea can be dealt with through China (and Russia to a lesser extent).  That's not true about Iran.  They have a resource that is globally sought after and the Iranian regime will try to leverage that resource to gain their world desires (whatever that might be).  That makes Iran much more dangerous since, if they determine they can get away with nuking Israel they will (there's no one with a thumb big enough to stop them).  The irony of that is that the United States has the largest oil reserves in the world but we won't tap it (part of the reason is the "global economy" but the environmental concerns are a big factor).  It's hard to put pressure on Iran as long as they can threaten Europe, the US and part of the rest of the world with oil.......perhaps if we (the US) were producing our own oil instead of importing it Iran's threat would be severely limited and then we could "negotiate" from a better position.  But that's just a fantasy right now.  The United States has backed itself in a corner leaving only military intervention to convince Iran to be nice.........and that won't work if they get nukes. 

Ron Paul scares me because I really think he would just walk away from Iran's threat and pull the US behind a wall.  Isolationism was a big reason we had two world wars last century.  You can't negotiate when you have nothing to negotiate with.  We only have the military..........and it's not a good thing to have only one "strength".  Take away that single strength and you have nothing.  You're at the mercy of others.  And how merciful do you think Iran is?  They slaughtered their own people a few years ago.

And I'm going to say it again.  If Ron Paul becomes the Republican nominee, I will vote for him over Obama.  If he runs as a third party candidate, I will not.  I have no problem with Ron Paul except his foreign policy stance.  He's got some very serious isolationist ideas.  But that's better than capitulating all together like the present administration is doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first recording of the birth is about 4000bc, Mary was a human female, she was liked by one of the gods, he mated with her and produced the first modern man, in the story a god means a person from the stars and not some mythical being, there were 13 of these gods and they all mated with the females here and created the first 13 families of modern man, the story is on many tablets from about  4000 bc in Iraq, since the Iraq war the USA have disallowed any further digging and the church is not happy about these tablets, last I heard nearly all these tablets were collected up and taken to Israel and the Vatican, only in the last few years has the language on these tablets been understood, it seems that the Hebrews copied these stories edited them a bit so it looked as if they were about them and added them to their bible, but the story's come from 1000's of years before the Hebrews.

The reason the gods came here was for gold, they traded gold in their world, we did not use gold or have any use for it, but they taught us how to farm and gave us weapons in exchange for gold, all these stories can be found in the middle east now that the languages have been deciphered. Also they found an exact Jesus story to from about 1000 bc, even the same dates, this guy was born 25th of dec, he had 12 followers, healed the sick and was nailed to a cross at Easter time and rose 3 days later, his name was mithras a Persian, why the hebrews should want to steal a very old story and make out it is modern i dont know, but they wont now let people look at the tablets.

 

PS an even older city was found from 10,000 bc, the odd thing about this city it has carvings that are of things that were not there,the city is in southern turkey, but war has stopped all digs there, this city has things on the walls that are amazing, but it could be years before anyone gets to dig, last i heard there was a small team there, but it is US, so the church will have the last say as to what we will be allowed to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...